Prompt action and expeditious completion of the sanction process and trials are essential in corruption cases to ensure effective enforcement of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

AMAR SARAN AND R. N. MISRA, JJ.

This case initially came up before the present Division Bench on 10. 1. 2007 when we expressed our dismay that in spite of the case being under the Prevention of Corruption Act the arrest of the petitioner G. D. Singh, a Superintending Engineer in the UPSEB, was stayed on 11. 7. 2002 in respect of an FIR dated 18. 6. 2002 and in almost five years thereafter the investigation of the case was not concluded. We sought an explanation from the investigating officer and directed conclusion of the investigation expeditiously.

2. On 31. 1. 2007 when we were informed by the learned AGA that after completion of the investigation a report was sent to the State Government on 1. 12. 2003 for sanction of prosecution, we were shocked to learn that in over three years the State Government had not taken any decision on the issue of sanction and we directed the State Government to take a decision on the matter within 3 weeks. Realizing that the case against the petitioner was only representative of a larger category of cases, we sought details about the case against GD Singh as well as details in tabular form about the status of other cases which were pending for sanction with it, the period thereof, the level at which the delay had been occasioned and the reasons for delays, if any, in the return to be filed by Director of Vigilance.

3. By an affidavit dated 1. 3. 2007 we were informed that till 19. 2. 2007, 77 matters were pending before the State Government for prosecution sanction against various accused persons (the number of accused was not however specified) and that there was another list which showed that cases against 584 accused persons were pending till 27. 2. 2007 before the competent authorities of various departments for grant of sanctions. Some of these cases were more that 10 years old. Expressing our dismay over this State of affairs as corruption in a civilized society was a disease like cancer or HIV leading to AIDS and was becoming incurable as observed in paragraph 7 in State of M. P. v. Ram Singh, AIR 2000 SC 870 and that the socio-political system would crumble under its own weight unless this widespread corruption was checked, which was a danger to democracy and our economic and socio-political system. We, therefore, directed that steps ought to be taken for completing the procedure for sanction within 3 months at various levels by our order dated 8. 3. 2007.

4. As the final report had been submitted in the petitioners case and only a departmental enquiry had been ordered and the petitioner chose not to press the present writ petition, we dismissed the same so far as the petitioner was concerned and directed that henceforth the case would be listed under the heading in Re: In the matter of Sanctions For Prosecution in Vigilance Matters v. State of U. P. and others.

5. Thereafter we have been monitoring the matter, receiving reports on different dates and continually issuing orders in the nature of mandamus as and when required.

6. The last such affidavit dated 29. 10. 2007, sworn by Under Secretary, Vigilance Department, has been filed before us today.

7. In the said affidavit, it is mentioned that the department has submitted two lists. The first list relates to 77 cases and the other list related to 588 accused persons. It was informed by an earlier affidavit dated 21. 7. 2007 that out of 588 accused persons sanction has been accorded in the cases of 397 accused persons and the case of 105 accused were being processed for sanction. Upto 22. 10. 2007 sanction for prosecution of 42 accused was further granted. It was refused in two cases and with respect to 61 accused persons the application for grant of sanction was pending before the State Government/competent authority. A chart mentioning that in the case of 440 accused persons sanction had been granted. Sanction was not required in the cases of 62 accused persons as they had retired and they were not Government servants. In 12 cases t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document